Monday 31 October 2011

Directors and Officers and Peak Water

Lack of transparent disclosure has been an aggravation since my days as an international equity analyst.  In my experience, there is only one solution to this aggravation:  research. (Occasionally a sharp stick poked at the company directors worked.) The following was prompted by attendance at the ASrIA conference in Hong Kong in September 2011. The challenge to learn as much about the environmental sector in one week for three reasons: (1) How quickly may a Director and Officer become “reasonably” informed? (2) Do Directors and Officers need to know about it to survive? (3) If so, what should they be disclosing to shareholders and how?  This is what I learnt….. The series runs sequentially over various subjects.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Peak Water

Cursory research shows that there can prima facie be no Peak Water.  However this may well be the one thing that you will not have to explain to your grandchildren depending where you live.
Some children in Australia were ten years old before they saw rain when the drought broke in 2010.  But all children across Australia understood the issues of water regulation and pricing:  no more running under the waterhose during unbearably hot summers, no more washing the car with mum in the driveway, etc.  Water restrictions were taught in primary schools.  So think water scarcity in Australia, and every family gets “it”.

China and Water, Why?

Because within the next few years China will surpass the USA as the largest economy in the world.  Because it is going to be one of the key hotspots with respect to geopolitical disturbance.  Just as oil and the Middle East have been a critical hotspot for the last 50 years, in the next it will be China and water.  And if you think the wars over oil have been fierce, think how they will be over water.  After all, we can do without oil but not water.
Countries reliant on water from China are:  Pakistan, Bangladesh, Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cambodia as many of Asia’s rivers flow through China (Mekong, Brahmaputra, and the Indus)[i].  Already this past month there has been an uprising within Myanmar to such an extent that that government has halted the building of a hydroelectric dam by China.[ii]
And if you are a Director and Officer of a company outsourcing from or selling to China, or maybe reliant on goods and services provided by China for your business, you would also need to be aware that prices for water there are set to increase 3-5 times, not percent[iii], to reach the price of Singapore.  The water tariffs in China would need to increase 14 - 24 times to equal the tariff of Copenhagen[iv].
The China model, as reported by the FT, “has been predicated on cheap, pliant labour; cheap and easy credit from State owned banks; and heavily subsidised inputs such as power and water.”[v] And that is now changing.
China has 7% of world’s freshwater reserves but 20% of its population; and its renewable water per capita of just 1,816 m3 per annum, is only 20% of the USA per capita per annum.  Its water per capita is similar to that of the Middle East, which is not a world renowned manufacturing base. Yet in the face of this very low capacity, or in addition to, according to China’s Ministry of Environment Protection, 19% of rivers and basins monitored for pollution and 35% of key lakes and reservoirs are essentially too polluted for agriculture and industrial use.  A substantial proportion of water reserves are not fit for human consumption[vi].
It’s four top farming provinces produce more sheep meat than either Australia or New Zealand; more wheat than the USA [similar to India] and in 2008 more potatoes than Russia, plus USA, plus Germany combined. But 50% of its water pollution is caused by its agriculture[vii].
Finally 95.6% of China’s hydro and thermal electric power producers require water for generation[viii], and this production is set to nearly double (1.8 times) by 2020. That is 8 years away.  That is, in the near term. In strategic plans, now!
And here of course, we can return to Peak Oil and Peak Carbon and Peak Food.  Because water scarcity limits biofuel production, a replacement for oil.   And it limits the production of many other goods and services that China may export, as water scarcity in the future and rising prices either limits production and raises prices of the good and services.

It takes how much?

It takes nearly 150,000 litres of water to make a car, and another 30,000 litres to put tyres on it.  Nearly 250,000 litres of water to make 1 ton of steel[ix], and 5,000 litres to make one ton of cement.  With China’s massive infrastructure build out, this will draw on its water resources heavily.
Its apparel manufacturing also faces its own price rises in labour, and a rising reminbi, let alone water. It takes 350 ton of water (cubic meters) to make one ton of paper.[x] A desk top computer takes 1,500 litres, denim jeans 6,000 litres; a kilo of wheat 1,000 litres, of chicken 3-4,000 litres, and of beef 15-30,000 litres[xi].
The annual global trade in “virtual water” is said to exceed 800,000,000,000,000 litres – the equivalent of 10 Nile Rivers. [xii] That’s correct, 800 trillion.
We could continue in this vein, however the point may be made over and over again: the requirement of water as an input in all products and production is ubiquitous. No Director and Officer can be immune to it.
Yet as mentioned above, the world has an abundance of water. 

Arguments against Peak Water

There is more water than you can poke a stick at in the world, and Peak Water is just a concept. However, for all the water in the world, only 0.007% of all water on earth is accessible for direct human use; lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and underground aquifers.[xiii]
Reviewing the research, it appears that Peak Water as a concept can be broken into “peak renewable”, “peak nonrenewable” and “peak ecological water”.  And although there is a vast amount of water on the planet, sustainably managed fresh water is becoming scarce. For example we are pumping fossil groundwater faster than it can be replaced. [xiv]
Again, it is well known that humans already use more than 50% of all renewable and accessible fresh water flows. Now, today. And this before the population nearly doubles over the next decades.[xv]  By 2030 the global water demand will be 40 percent greater than today's "accessible, reliable, environmentally sustainable supply".[xvi]
Let’s say as a Director and Officer you would prefer not to use nonrenewable or ecological water resources because of their incredible high cost, then what remains is of critical importance is the “peak renewable” water resources.
As Dr. Peter H. Gleick, Ms. Meena Palaniappan describe in their 2011 paper, for a number of major river basins, peak renewable water limits have already been reached as human demand consumes close to the entire annual supply. The Colorado River in the US, for example, is shared by seven U.S. states and Mexico, and in an average year no water reaches the delta. Other rivers are increasingly reaching their peak renewable limits as well, including the Huang He (Yellow River) in China, the Nile in northern Africa and the Jordan in the Middle East, where formerly perennial river flows now often fall to zero. [xvii]
Their report also suggests the option available when renewable water is no longer renewing at a sustainable level, to the extent that Directors and Officer could rely for certainty of planning….
…..“when peak water limits are reached, there are only a few possible options for satisfying new needs; (1) reducing demand, (2) substituting one use of water for another that has higher economic or social value, (3) physically moving the demand for water to a region where additional water is available, or (4) investing in a higher priced source of supply (bulk imports or transfers of water). For water, the cost of a new supply, including the cost of transporting water, is often a key limiting factor. for water, as cheaper sources of water are depleted or allocated, more expensive sources must be tapped, either from new supplies or the reallocation of water among existing users. Ultimately, the ‘backstop’ price for water will also be reached. “[xviii]
The Murray Darling Basin Plan in Australia whereby government reduced the water usage is another example of businesses being disrupted due to ecological damage to water courses. 
Gleick et al conclude that “ there are growing efforts to quantify peak ecological limits and to develop policies to restore water for ecosystem services in basins experiencing serious ecological disruptions. Regions that rely on ground water basins suffering from non-renewable withdrawals are under pressure to reduce withdrawals to more sustainable levels, or to better integrate surface and ground water management. The bad news is that we are increasingly reaching peak water limits.”[xix]
Ergo, fellow Directors and Officers, this is about increased cost. Ignoring the moral issues for a moment.

Strategies Peak Water

Directors and Officers denying that they need to measure and monitor their reliance on water when the evidence is all around us of business disruption, falling accessible and clean water, and its absolute requirement as an input to all aspects of its business, whether products, staff and community, is disingenuous.
No doubt there will be rent seeking all the way down the plug hole, but in the end, the evidence is clear now that a Director and Officer should be measuring the water footprint of the company to ensure that, when (not if) prices start rising they have the capacity to withstand it or at least know which levers to pull. 
Probably even more imperative is assessing if any your products, supplies, or services rely on nonrenewable water or that drained from ecological waterways.  If it is, you may be in real trouble not just on costs but supply constraints soon.
How much?  Don’t know?  As a Director or Officer, you will have to do the numbers. 
This is how the research team of the world’s only global bank sees the water future in its report “The World in 2050”.
In 1995, about 1.8 billion people were living in areas experiencing severe water stress; by 2025, about two-thirds of the world’s population – about 5.5 billion people – are expected to live in areas facing moderate to severe water stress.[xx]


[i] www.Chinawaterrisk.org
[ii] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203791904576606951168757150.html
[iii]Secondary source:  www.Chinawaterrisk.org
[iv] Ibid
[v] Financial Times, Monday October 17, 2011.  A Workshop on the Wane” by Jamil Anderlini.
[vi] Secondary source:  www.Chinawaterrisk.org
[vii] Ibid
[viii] Ibid
[ix] Secondary Source:  http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/how-many-gallons-of-water.php
[x] http://www.paperonweb.com/A1015.htm
[xi] Nicholas Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Group, an international firm that works to accelerate the development and market adoption of clean technologies. See http://www.cwmission.org/features/thirst-for-change
[xii] Ibid
[xiii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water
[xiv] http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2009/02/video-peter-gleick-on-peak-water.html
[xv] The Concept of Peak Water, 2011  Dr. Peter H. Gleick, Ms. Meena Palaniappan at http://www.siwi.org/documents/resources/best/2010/2011_OTT_PeterGleick.pdf
[xvi] U.S.-led study "Charting Our Water Future" by consultants McKinsey and Company
[xviii] Ibid
[xix] Ibid
[xx] http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?p=pdf&key=ej73gSSJVj&n=282364.PDF


Sunday 30 October 2011

Directors and Officers and Peak Carbon

Lack of transparent disclosure has been an aggravation since my days as an international equity analyst.  In my experience, there is only one solution to this aggravation:  research. (Occasionally a sharp stick poked at the company directors worked.) The following was prompted by attendance at the ASrIA conference in Hong Kong in September 2011. The challenge to learn as much about the environmental sector in one week for three reasons: (1) How quickly may a director and officer become “reasonably” informed? (2) Do directors and officers need to know about it to survive? (3) If so, what should they be disclosing to shareholders and how?  This is what I learnt….. The series runs sequentially over various subjects.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Peak Carbon

So far I have researched the Peak Oil theory and its implications for Directors and Officers.  Next for carbon, about which there seems to be substantial material. 

At first it appeared, that Governments had stepped in on measuring and pricing carbon, because that’s what governments do – act in the face of market failure. So one could assume that carbon pollution is a problem for the commons; that private cost has now become public, as with the GFC and the debt of financial and quasi government institutions.

However, as every Director and Officer should be aware today, governments are, through regulation and legislation, handing the cost of carbon right back to the companies that produce it. If you are a Director or an Officer, understanding your carbon cost is as important as understanding all your other expenses.
It is obvious to say that pulling the strategic levers on revenues and costs is critical for optimising returns for your shareholders, competing with others, and delivering value to customers.  And carbon is a cost price you do not control; it is (or eventually will be) a market cost with all the volatility that implies.  As a pre-run to market pricing of carbon, some governments are pricing your carbon footprint for you.  Which at least has the benefit of being equal for your competitors as well. As markets takeover, that will change. Your ability to manage the cost of carbon will depend on the quality of the staff you employ to do so. Many a company over the decades that relied on volatile market prices for hedging its goods or supplies has come undone (think gold, currency, etc) and crashed and burned. Carbon prices in the Euro have already been extremely volatile as well. [i]

So far I have learned it is a long term cost issue.  From where we are today, it would take about 100 years for carbon dioxide (CO2) to disappear [to sustainable levels] from the atmosphere if emissions stopped completely.[ii]
The current science from probably the most credible sources, state that for all of human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million (ppm) of CO2.  When the carbon problem first became apparent, scientists put a cap before real problems occurred at 550 ppm, then this dropped quickly to 450 ppm.  But propelled by the news of accelerating ecological impacts in the most sensitive areas such as the Artic, now, not forecast, some of the world's leading climate scientists have now revised the highest safe cap level of CO2to 350 ppm. [iii] [iv]
US Department of Commerce, Earth System Research Laboratory reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at September 2011 was 392 ppm (mean monthly).[v]
Anyone can do the math, including the shareholders and customers of the companies headed by Directors and Officers. This is not a problem for the future, we are already up to our necks in it.
Of course, there’s more.  Carbon is only one of the destructive greenhouse gases.  The long lived greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).[vi] ;
Officially, climate policy targets for greenhouse gases (“GHG” as opposed to just carbon above) were aiming to cap emissions at around 450 ppm, which would theoretically prevent global average temperatures rising beyond a ‘safe’ 2C degrees. The first problem is that we are long passed the danger point. In mid-2005, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that the total atmospheric concentration of GHG, was already 455 ppm. This implies that we are already well on course to surpass 2C degrees.[vii]
In controversial research released in late October 2011, it is reported that warming over land in the last 50 years has risen by 0.911C degrees[viii].  I am going to call that 1C degree, that is, we are already at the half way point to the “safe” 2C degrees increase in warming.  The report is apparently controversial because it also highlights that the warming has plateaued for the last decade, after rising in a straight line before.  However, there is no controversy over the number, and peaks troughs and plateaus is a common pattern so there can be no suggestion that the present plateau won’t start rising again.
What happens with a 2C degrees increase and beyond is catastrophic climate changes, with probable destructive loops feeding into the GHG in the atmosphere.  Not only will there be unstable weather patterns; increased floods and droughts; but melting ice increase volcanic activity, giving rise to even more tsunamis[ix] and disruption to commerce through ash clouds.
So whether it is carbon alone, or collectively greenhouse gases, we are already past the tipping point.  For Directors and Officers, it is now, not next year, or the next generation.

Arguments against Peak Carbon

So the governments are fixing this problem, right?.  Well no, you will have to.
Although governments agreed in Cancun in December 2010 to try to hold the increase in average global temperatures below 2C۫ degrees this century, current commitments remain insufficient.  As a result, the world will warm by 2C۫ by 2050, and in some projections by as early as 2024.[x] This would have severe implications for agricultural yields, as well as water availability, with greater incidence of extreme events such as droughts and floods.[xi]
GHG emissions are the largest and fastest-growing component of the global economy’s ‘ecological footprint’ – and according to a report for the PRI investor alliance, these emissions generated an external damage costs of US$4.5 trillion in 2008, some 7.5% of global GDP; this external cost is projected to rise to over 12% of global GDP by 2050.[xii] But this latter relies on HSBC’s Global Economic analysts self-confessed “rosy” expectations of the size of GDP in 2050.
By way of comparison, the IMF reports that the GFC cost $2.8 trillion in early 2010.  Lost jobs in the tens of millions are not included. 
So, just as a rule of thumb, it could be argued in the last decade the damage has been US$45 trillion from GHG.  And growing.  So this is like the equivalent of two GFCs every year forever, but this time every company is involved.
I wanted to be able to suggest an against argument for the consequences for Peak Carbon/GHG, but I couldn’t find one.  Can you? 
Well that’s not true.  The Tea Party in the US, ably represented by a US Senator (who I understand is going to be the Republican Head of the Department of Energy when elected), said words to the effect “the world will end when God wants it to, and not before” about climate change.  I’d suggest that could be Plan B. Of course, there is also the Federal Opposition in Australia, widely referred to as the teaparty.com.au.  They are called the Opposition, because they appear to oppose everything; good and bad.

Strategies’ Peak Carbon

So we are already up to our necks in it, and it is likely to have severe consequences according to the HSBC Report referred to above, increased severity and incidences of extreme weather patterns; heightening of issues relating to food security; disruption to water security for agriculture, industry and human consumption; and without doubt severe geopolitical upheavals.

Directors and Officers may consider this only applies to long tail businesses, such as insurance companies, pension fund managers, big scale infrastructure for commodities extraction.  However what if the 2C degree increase and its timing is wrong??  What if it is earlier?? And the cascading environmental backlash occurs on your watch?

And those long tail businesses are in trouble, if my reading of the recent Carbon Tracker report is correct.[xiii]  They report that the global carbon budget for 2000-2050 is 886 GtCO2[xiv].  In the first decade alone we have used 321Gt CO2 already, or 36%.  This allows only 141 GtCO2 for each of the next four decades. That is a big drop from 321 GtCO2. 

They then report that all known fossil fuel reserves are 2,795 GtCO2 (65% coal, oil 22% and gas 13%). Three times the aforementioned budget.  And for Directors and Officers, this becomes even more alarming (especially to an ex global equity analyst) when the top 100 listed coal, oil and gas companies are reported to have reserves on their balance sheet of ~745 GtCO2. They go on to say “if the 2C degree target is rigorously applied, then up to 80% of declared reserves owned by these companies …..are subject to impairment.” Thank goodness I am not the auditor or Director and Officer signing off on those balance sheets as true and fair. This report makes clear the systemic risk from understanding more about Directors and Officers near term risks.

Talk about a slow paced GFC, it is starting to look like a train.

As a Director or Officer do you actually know what your carbon or greenhouse footprint is?  What part of the US$4.5 trillion cost in 2008 was it?  Have you imbedded carbon reserves in your balance sheet that should be written down? Do you know what the carbon footprint is of your primary suppliers?  Of your products?  You may think you know, but could your company stand an audit let alone a class action?
There is nothing found in researching this subject that suggests it is possible to isolate and attribute specific carbon emissions back to a single carbon issuer.  I may be wrong.  However intuitively the technology must be available to effectively DNA a carbon emission and slate it home to a particular company.  Just like an oil spill.  What then, now that governments (and people) are increasingly calling to account companies who cause damage?

How much?  Don’t know?  As a Director or Officer, you will have to do the numbers. 
Here’s what Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in 2008:
James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.  "We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."[xv]


[i] Graph of the LEBA EUO carbon market  http://www.investmenttools.com/futures/energy/carbon.htm
[ii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/24/un-greenhouse-gases
[iii] http://www.350.org/about/science
[iv] Remember This:  350 parts per million By Bill McKibben, Washington Post, Friday, December 28, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701942.html
[v] US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Research at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
[vi] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. See at: http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-es.html
[vii] http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/11/24/avoiding-catastrophe/
[viii] The Economist, The Heat is On, October 22, 2011.  Quoting a paper by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group currently under peer review.
[ix] FT.Com Magazine, October 15/16 2011;  Prepare for natural disasters.  Pilita Clark
[x] Too Close for Comfort, December 2009
[xi] HSBC Global Research have published an excellent report on their views of the global economy in 2050.  They have considered many of the issues in this paper, and suggest that either the technology or capacity for the world to continue growing is presently available, albeit not in sufficient quantities.  It also, the paraphrase suggests that its forecasts are relying on most of the people doing most of the right things to counter theses risks on a timely basis.  We disagree with this outlook, and they provide no evidence that it has occurred in the past as proof it will occur in the next less than 40 years. The excellent report is available on http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?p=pdf&key=ej73gSSJVj&n=282364.PDF
[xii] Ibid http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?p=pdf&key=ej73gSSJVj&n=282364.PDF
[xiii] Carbon Tracker. Unburnable Carbon – Are the World’s Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble. 2011
[xiv] Based on a report by Potsdam Institute.
[xv] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/tech/main4204994.shtml